Clinician Educator Milestones: Assessing and Improving Educators' Skills.

ABSTRACT: The importance of the clinician educator (CE) role in delivery of competency-based medical education is well recognized. There is, however, no formal mechanism to identify when faculty have the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be successful CEs. In 2020, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, Association of American Medical Colleges, and American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine convened a workgroup of 18 individuals representing multiple medical specialties and diverse institutions in the United States, including nonphysician educators, a medical student, and a resident, to develop a set of competencies, subcompetencies, and milestones for CEs.A 5-step process was used to create the Clinician Educator Milestones (CEMs). In step 1, the workgroup developed an initial CEM draft. Through brainstorming, 141 potential education-related CE tasks were identified. Descriptive statements for each competency and developmental trajectories for each subcompetency were developed and confirmed by consensus. The workgroup then created a supplemental guide, assessment tools, and additional resources. In step 2, a diverse group of CEs were surveyed in 2021 and provided feedback on the CEMs. In step 3, this feedback was used by the workgroup to refine the CEMs. In step 4, the second draft of the CEMs was submitted for public comment, and the CEMs were finalized. In step 5, final CEMs were released for public use in 2022.The CEMs consist of 1 foundational domain that focuses on commitment to lifelong learning, 4 additional domains of competence for CEs in the learning environment, and 20 subcompetencies. These milestones have many potential uses for CEs, including self-assessment, constructing learning and improvement plans, and designing systematic faculty development efforts. The CEMs will continue to evolve as they are applied in practice and as the role of CEs continues to grow and develop.

Competency-Based Time-Variable Anesthesiology Residency Training: Identification of Problems and Solutions.

BACKGROUND: Global medical education is gradually moving toward more comprehensive implementations of a competency-based education (CBE) model. Elimination of standard time-based training and adoption of time-variable training (competency-based time-variable training [CB-TVT]) is one of the final stages of implementation of CBE. While CB-TVT has been implemented in some programs outside the United States, residency programs in the United States are still exploring this approach to training. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) are encouraging member boards and residency review committees to consider innovative ways programs could implement CB-TVT. The goals of this study were to (1) identify potential problems with the implementation of CB-TVT in anesthesiology residency training, (2) rank the importance of the problems and the perceived difficulty of solving them, and (3) develop proposed solutions to the identified problems. METHODS: Study participants were recruited from key stakeholder groups in anesthesiology education, including current or former program directors, department chairs, residents, fellows, American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) board members, ACGME residency review committee members or ACGME leaders, designated institutional officials, residency program coordinators, clinical operations directors, and leaders of large anesthesiology community practice groups. This study was conducted in 2 phases. In phase 1, survey questionnaires were iteratively distributed to participants to identify problems with the implementation of CB-TVT. Participants were also asked to rank the perceived importance and difficulty of each problem and to identify relevant stakeholder groups that would be responsible for solving each problem. In phase 2, surveys focused on identifying potential solutions for problems identified in phase 1. RESULTS: A total of 36 stakeholders identified 39 potential problems, grouped into 7 major categories, with the implementation of CB-TVT in anesthesiology residency training. Of the 39 problems, 19 (48.7%) were marked as important or very important on a 5-point scale and 12 of 19 (63.2%) of the important problems were marked as difficult or very difficult to solve on a 5-point scale. Stakeholders proposed 165 total solutions to the identified problems. CONCLUSIONS: CB-TVT is a promising educational model for anesthesiology residency, which potentially results in learner flexibility, individualization of curricula, and utilization of competencies to determine learner advancement. Because of the potential problems with the implementation of CB-TVT, it is important for future pilot implementations of CB-TVT to document realized problems, efficacy of solutions, and effects on educational outcomes to justify the burden of implementing CB-TVT.

Development and Pilot Testing of a Programmatic System for Competency Assessment in US Anesthesiology Residency Training.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, a set of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and procedural skills assessments were developed for anesthesiology training, but they did not assess all the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones. The aims of this study were to (1) remap the 2018 EPA and procedural skills assessments to the revised ACGME Anesthesiology Milestones 2.0, (2) develop new assessments that combined with the original assessments to create a system of assessment that addresses all level 1 to 4 milestones, and (3) provide evidence for the validity of the assessments. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi process, a panel of anesthesiology education experts remapped the original assessments developed in 2018 to the Anesthesiology Milestones 2.0 and developed new assessments to create a system that assessed all level 1 through 4 milestones. Following a 24-month pilot at 7 institutions, the number of EPA and procedural skill assessments and mean scores were computed at the end of the academic year. Milestone achievement and subcompetency data for assessments from a single institution were compared to scores assigned by the institution's clinical competency committee (CCC). RESULTS: New assessment development, 2 months of testing and feedback, and revisions resulted in 5 new EPAs, 11 nontechnical skills assessments (NTSAs), and 6 objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs). Combined with the original 20 EPAs and procedural skills assessments, the new system of assessment addresses 99% of level 1 to 4 Anesthesiology Milestones 2.0. During the 24-month pilot, aggregate mean EPA and procedural skill scores significantly increased with year in training. System subcompetency scores correlated significantly with 15 of 23 (65.2%) corresponding CCC scores at a single institution, but 8 correlations (36.4%) were <30.0, illustrating poor correlation. CONCLUSIONS: A panel of experts developed a set of EPAs, procedural skill assessment, NTSAs, and OSCEs to form a programmatic system of assessment for anesthesiology residency training in the United States. The method used to develop and pilot test the assessments, the progression of assessment scores with time in training, and the correlation of assessment scores with CCC scoring of milestone achievement provide evidence for the validity of the assessments.

Development and Pilot Testing of Entrustable Professional Activities for US Anesthesiology Residency Training.

BACKGROUND: Modern medical education requires frequent competency assessment. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) provides a descriptive framework of competencies and milestones but does not provide standardized instruments to assess and track trainee competency over time. Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) represent a workplace-based method to assess the achievement of competency milestones at the point-of-care that can be applied to anesthesiology training in the United States. METHODS: Experts in education and competency assessment were recruited to participate in a 6-step process using a modified Delphi method with iterative rounds to reach consensus on an entrustment scale, a list of EPAs and procedural skills, detailed definitions for each EPA, a mapping of the EPAs to the ACGME milestones, and a target level of entrustment for graduating US anesthesiology residents for each EPA and procedural skill. The defined EPAs and procedural skills were implemented using a website and mobile app. The assessment system was piloted at 7 anesthesiology residency programs. After 2 months, faculty were surveyed on their attitudes on usability and utility of the assessment system. The number of evaluations submitted per month was collected for 1 year. RESULTS: Participants in EPA development included 18 education experts from 11 different programs. The Delphi rounds produced a final list of 20 EPAs, each differentiated as simple or complex, a defined entrustment scale, mapping of the EPAs to milestones, and graduation entrustment targets. A list of 159 procedural skills was similarly developed. Results of the faculty survey demonstrated favorable ratings on all questions regarding app usability as well as the utility of the app and EPA assessments. Over the 2-month pilot period, 1636 EPA and 1427 procedure assessments were submitted. All programs continued to use the app for the remainder of the academic year resulting in 12,641 submitted assessments. CONCLUSIONS: A list of 20 anesthesiology EPAs and 159 procedural skills assessments were developed using a rigorous methodology to reach consensus among education experts. The assessments were pilot tested at 7 US anesthesiology residency programs demonstrating the feasibility of implementation using a mobile app and the ability to collect assessment data. Adoption at the pilot sites was variable; however, the use of the system was not mandatory for faculty or trainees at any site.

Does Participation in Written Guided Reflective Practice Exercises Affect Readiness for Self-Directed Learning in a Sample of US Anesthesiology Residents?

BACKGROUND: Reflective practice has been identified as one way to increase participation in self-directed lifelong learning so that physicians maintain a level of current and relevant medical knowledge for their practice. This study sought to determine if reflective practice affected the readiness for self-directed learning in a sample of anesthesiology residents in the United States. METHODS: An experimental design was used to employ quantitative methods to investigate the effects of a self-guided 8-week reflective practice exercise on readiness for self-directed learning as measured by Guglielmino's Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale/Learning Preference Assessment (SDLRS/LPA). Participants were randomly assigned into an experimental group or control group. RESULTS: Fifty-one anesthesiology residents in 3 residency programs completed this study. No significant difference was found between the posttest SDLRS/LPA scores of the control (median = 227) and experimental group (median = 225; U = 294; z = -.584; P = .559; r = 41.18) as well as the pretest and posttest scores (z = -.65; P = .518; r = -.129) of the experimental group. CONCLUSIONS: We should continue to explore ways to train physicians to engage in practices that promote self-directed lifelong learning.